Comments on: News Ltd: Weet-Bix pulled their ads because of Cahill story

By: AMON

AMON — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:06:01 +0000

I think you other tossers are confusing the point. They didn’t withdraw the ad to try to ‘influence editorial content’.. they withdrew the ad because they disagreed with the pathetic journalism which resulted in this over the top series of articles. The Tele should stick to writing articles about the large number of moronic rugby players running around… God knows they have plenty of incidents far more serious than Timmy’s event to report on, they were just looking to discredit the Socceroos.

By: Janice

Janice — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:02:47 +0000

David’s comment is smack on. Sanitarium has leveraged its sponsorship of Cahill beautifully with their ads…and they are under no obligation whatsoever to run those ads in papers that stand to damage their investment with inaccurate reporting. I think William has missed the point. If Sanitarium was expecting athletes or teams to act like SDAs then they would have withdrawn their sponsorship from Cahill, rather than leverage it the way they have, although I do agree with his comment that most sponsorships are a waste of money. In this case, however, Sanitarium have shown how sponsorships if leveraged properly and integrated with their overall marcoms strategy can add value.

By: David

David — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:32:30 +0000

Why would Sanitarium run an ad featuring a national hero who they sponsor (Tim Cahill) in the same newspapers that attempt to tarnish his name with unjustifiable articles with no evidence what so ever. It doesn’t make good business sense to me.

By: Rory

Rory — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:45:23 +0000

I don’t think Sanitarium’s action will change behaviour at the Daily Telegraph where this all started. We now know that the Daily Telegraph has published a fake email on the Utegate scandal, much like the fake email they dredged up in support of their intial Cahill muck piece. It’s the Telegraph brand that is being destroyed here. Considering Qantas, Nike, Westfields, Hyundai, Sony, Cadbury-Schweppes, NAB & Optus are all commerical partners of football – will they not take too kindly to Telegraph Executive Sports Editor Phil Rothfield linking unfavourable football (soccer) editorial content to the current revenue stream from rugby league advertising. Read his quote here;
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au.....ias-196111

By: Shae

Shae — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:23:53 +0000

Nice to see that someone out there is sticking up for Tim Cahill and the Socceroos!

By: William

William — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:00 +0000

Do they want to sell cereal or control everyone’s behaviour?

Frankly, I believe most sponsorships are a waste of money, but if a company believes in the concept then they should stick to it for the purpose of sales and not bother to get overly self-righteous.

If the athletes and teams aren’t SDA, then don’t expect them to act like SDA’s. Most SDA’s don’t meet their own standards because the standards are absurd and based in fallacy!

By: lesroo

lesroo — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:43:36 +0000

We need some action to reel-in certain sectors of our media. The Daily & Sunday Telegraph are sinking lower and lower in their attempts to attract readers to their ailing newsprint. Any reasonable person reading the original copy would have seen right through their ‘scuttlebuck’ – innuendo and hearsay from beginning to end, yet they continued to try to ‘justify’ their copy even when facts kept ‘getting in their way’.

Australian Football (soccer) has long had a ‘squeeky-clean’ reputation as opposed to the regular controversies in the other codes viz, AFL, NRL and Rugby. Seems News Ltd felt it was time to aim some crap at them.

Similar pressure as Sanitarium exerted was put to bear on the NRL by the elite public schools, who threatened to withdraw their support for rugby league in their schools, over the Matthew Johns affair.

Pressure by external bodies, does have an effect on the big boys of commerce and entertainment, to keep them honest and reputable.

Good on ya’ Sanitarium! I’ll have a Weet-Bix tomorrow!, as my way of saying “Thanks!”

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:14:33 +0000

The paper went forth with a story that was not accurate. All they had to do before getting themselves into this mess was to coraborate the story with the owner of the establishment in question. After doing that then would have realised that their source was not being completely truthful… However in Australia it seems the motto is report first ask questions later.

By: Mike Watkins

Mike Watkins — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:33:29 +0000

Thats hilarious.

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:25:57 +0000

Pistola, you have to be kidding? Roger has hit the nail on the head: this appears to be an attempt to control editorial content. It’s shameless bullying by Sanitarium. This situation completely destroys the brands credibility for me.

By: Roger Christie

Roger Christie — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:17:25 +0000

Have any NRL sponsors been seen in the pages of Australian media this year? Hopefully this isn’t a bigger can of worms around advertisers looking to control editorial content…

By: Pistola

Pistola — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:11:44 +0000

Well done Sanitarium. Stick by your guns and withhold your ad dollars for the rest of the year.